In re Alexis C. CA2/1
Filed 2/29/16 In re Alexis C. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
In re ALEXIS C. et al, Persons Coming B265643 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County ___________________________________ Super. Ct. No. DK09373) LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
MARCOS C.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Annabelle G. Cortez, Judge. Reversed. Maureen L. Keaney, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, and Kim Nemoy, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. __________
Marcos (Father) appeals1 from the order of the juvenile court asserting jurisdiction over his four daughters under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a), (b) and (j).2 There being no evidence that the children are at risk of serious physical harm, the order is reversed. FACTS AND PROCEEDING BELOW Alexis (age 15), Marissa (age 14), V. (age 13) and Melanie (age 3), came to the attention of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) in December of 2014, when a friend of Marissa’s reported to the school that Marissa had bruises on the front and back of her thigh, which the friend observed while they were changing for physical education class. When questioned by the school, Marissa stated that, on December 13, 2014, she and Father had argued over Marissa’s refusal to help clean the house. Father requested that Marissa give him her cellular phone as a consequence for her disrespectful behavior. Marissa refused, and Father lost his temper, hitting her with his hand on her mouth and a belt on her thigh. Marissa explained that this was the first time Father had hit her. On December 15, 2014, a DCFS children’s social worker (CSW) privately interviewed each of the children, Father and Vanessa (Mother) at their home. Marissa confirmed her previous report to school authorities and reiterated that Father’s use of violence was an isolated incident. Alexis confirmed Marissa’s account of the event. V., who was in the kitchen at the time of the incident, did not witness the argument, but remembered Marissa talking back to Father and Father hitting her legs. V. stated that, prior to this incident, Father had never hit any of the children with a belt. The CSW was unable to interview Melanie due to her young age, but noted that Melanie showed no signs of abuse or distress. Mother was in the restroom at the time of the incident, but stated that when she came out, she told Father to stop and asked him to leave the home to “let everything . . .
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)